Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Has anyone looked at these carefully? You go to the bottom of an article and click 'view ratings' to see what the crowd thinks of its trustworthiness, objectivity, completeness and quality of writing.

I can make little sense of the results, when picking on articles that I know are poorly written, incomplete and untrustworthy. I don't understand the distinction between 'trustworthy' and 'objective'. Could an article be rated as objective, but utterly untrustworthy? Or lacking any kind of objectivity, but entirely trustworthy?

Interestingly this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscellinus , which I can see is a combination of the Catholic Encyclopedia and Britannica 1911, scores worse than the awful 'History of Western philosophy' above. But it's quite well-written, although the style is somewhat antequated, using much longer sentences. A cursory glance shows that the 4chan generation prefer articles with short paragraphs and short sentences. Goodbye Western intellectual tradition.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 26th February 2012, 5:33pm

How are the lay public supposed to judge on the completeness of coverage of a subject when the whole point of an encyclopedia is to inform them about it? How can they judge its objectivity?

Since the point of the Like Button at Faceborg is to provide an insight on what product people prefer in theory, to spam them better with related advertisements, what kind of gain is produced in voting for a page at Wikipediotia?

Since the point of the Like Button at Faceborg is to provide an insight on what product people prefer in theory, to spam them better with related advertisements, what kind of gain is produced in voting for a page at Wikipediotia?

By pretending to "evaluate" these article ratings, the WMF might get some applause on supposedly trying to make Wikipedia more reliable, thus increasing donations?

By pretending to "evaluate" these article ratings, the WMF might get some applause on supposedly trying to make Wikipedia more reliable, thus increasing donations?

Editor retention + evaluation = more donations

Why are people donating money to a project which is decaying? How much time should be spent telling them that only 41 cents for each dollar of donations are used for server equipment, and that 0 cents are going towards the effective improvement of a page, as everyone is a random passerby who fiddles as they like, with no guarantee of accuracy?

Could an article be rated as objective, but utterly untrustworthy? Or lacking any kind of objectivity, but entirely trustworthy?

Certainly it could be objective but untrustworthy. If you put down random "facts" without checking, yet with no POV, it is objective, no? But of course it cannot be trusted.

The opposite is harder. Things can be correct so far as they go, yet have serious omissions. I do confess to having done such myself on Wikipedia. Every sentence individually is correct and trustworthy. Maybe people will say that the whole is the sum of its parts so if the whole article is biased by omission it is not trustworthy. I leave that to distinguished philosophers like Mr. Damian.